Spotify’s chief executive has defended the company’s move into AI-generated music, claiming it offers users and creators a better alternative to piracy and unregulated AI slop.

Last week, the platform announced a new feature in which premium users will be allowed to create their own, AI-generated remixes and song covers using music from participating artists.

The feature comes as a part of a deal with Universal Music Group that sent Spotify’s shares up 16% last week.

Alex Norström, CEO of Spotify, told the Financial Times the streamer was trying to offer a “controlled” alternative, in which musicians can consent to use of their work and make money from it, as opposed to having it pirated. “There’s a lot of rogue attempts at this,” he added.

Spotify’s feature will cost extra money, and allow “one song to become 10,000”, said Norström.

Details have yet to emerge on how this new feature will work, though; for example, whether user-generated AI remixes will be shareable, or private. It is also unclear how Spotify might label user-generated AI content if it is shareable.

Ed Newton-Rex, a composer and campaigner for protecting artists’ copyright, said: “I think if you are going to have AI music, it’s clearly better that you have AI music that is rooted in consent.”

However, he said, the feature could – depending on its design – lead to human artists facing greater competition from AI-generated work, in a “vicious circle” that would force even sceptical artists to take part.

“The big question will be whether fans can share remixes they make for other people to listen to. If they can, I think you get into dangerous territory. These AI remixes will flood Spotify and drown out other songs, which will in turn put pressure on more musicians to sign up to the AI remix feature.”

There appears to be clear demand for AI-generated music. Last year, three AI-generated songs topped music charts, including Spotify’s, highlighting a growing phenomenon of AI music flooding major platforms and, increasingly, being indistinguishable from human-made music.

“AI music has gotten much better very quickly, and so if people hear a song they like and they’re not thinking about whether or not it’s AI. Then there’s demand for it like there’s demand for any music,” said Newton-Rex.

Artificial intelligence is a grave concern for the music industry, and creative industries more broadly. In March, the UK government backtracked on a plan to let AI companies use copyrighted work without permission, after an outcry from thousands of artists including Elton John and Dua Lipa.

Leading AI companies, including Meta and OpenAI, have been sued for allegedly using books, newspaper articles and other copyrighted materials to train AI models without the consent of authors and creators.

In a new development last week, two Meta employees were individually sued for allegedly pirating a terabyte of books in order to train Llama.

Newton-Rex said Norström’s decision to frame Spotify’s move as a choice to prioritise curated AI content over AI slop elided the more real, pressing competition between human artists and AI-written music.

“The framing is absolutely AI music versus human music. Whenever someone listens to AI music on Spotify, they are not listening to a song that is simply made by a human. There are only so many hours that you listen to music in a day.”